Sozadeeis a state of mind. It was discovered (or founded) many years ago on a hot August afternoon's sail out of Newport Beach. There was no wind (at least any stronger than the current) and a burning, glaring sun. The limp sails afforded no shade. All aboard knew the outboard was questionable. The ice on the beer was melting and discussion was skirting the issue of sunstroke. Suddenly, the word "Sozadee" was uttered, the breeze returned, and all was well.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Open Thread! (I'm F.O.O.W.)

That's Fresh Out Of Words.

What's up in my pages is all I got. What's left - except to summarize? It's all about the clash between electoral politics and real politics.

In comments below, Readers are invited to discuss whatever is on their minds. But first . . .

You know, I just to had to borrow this poster (at least some of it). I just can't help my self. It's irresistible: what I've been saying for a long, long time.

I've also been trying to say what Howard Zinn said very well a few days ago:

When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.

We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.

Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house, smashed everything in sight, and terrorized your children a timetable for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at all? If they are in fact doing the opposite - provoking civil war, hurting people, perpetuating violence - they should withdraw as quickly as ships and planes can carry them home.

It is four years since the United States invaded Iraq with a ferocious bombardment, with “shock and awe.” That is enough time to decide if the presence of our troops is making the lives of the Iraqis better or worse. The evidence is overwhelming . . . .

We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do.

Other than this, I have nothing to say today.

For the balance of the day (or eternity) discuss whatever's on your mind on any subject.

For starters - if you are F.O.O.W. - you might go toMikael’s Impeach Bush Blogand speculate on why I didn't publish the entire poster.

If you have Fresh Words (on any subject) by all means post them up, too!

16 Moderated Comments:

Why would the war be quit.? The war has kept our economy going. Even though we bumper up on the abyss of ruin as far as our money system, it has delayed the inevitable, for a while, it has grown the economy. -- Rather than shorten or abbreviate the war, it is much more likely that the war will move to another area, or expand from where it is. Our system demands it. Soooo much money is being made, and money is the reward in this society for bad behavior that the paper pushers refer to as war. Ugly money grubbing behavior is rewarded in this system , and 'the war' is only a scam for the paper pushers. Both Repubs and Dems are the same. Both controlled by special interests of money and belief.And Oil.? The system made the largest profits in the history of the world taking the Iraqi oil off the market. Scarcity was maintained. A must in a system like ours. The current oil price would be about 28 dollars Bbl. minus the war. About $ 13 Bbl. if Iraq were pumping at 100% capacity. We live in a corporate controlled scam society. That people glamorize our system is funny. We got the luck of the draw with resources , and people mistake that for intelligence.

I long since gave out of words about Bush and Cheney. By all rights they should be impeached but my best guess is that they won't, as long as things stay more or less the way they are now. This situation would definitely change if Iran is attacked. As simply put for those with no military knowledge we are out of military options over there. In Iraq alone the mental and physical toll on the troops will force us out at some point soon. Hagel sees this along with others and only the insane, McCain, and the kiss ass, Lieberman, still can talk of victory. Continuing to pursuing a military victory will only result in a completely broken and demoralized army and Marines and a Middle East version of Din Bin Phue which ran the Frogs out of Indochina. There is always the option of mobilizing "every swinging dick", completely pulling EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY we have elsewhere and calling up all the IRR, and retired reserve and restarting the whole affair as suggested by Tom Friedman. As much as the repubs talk trash about the Democrats cowboying up and cutting off the funds and brings everyone home now, the tables should be turned and the Demos should ask why we are not mobilizing everyone and bringing back the draft to provide the needed troops to bring victory to this vital campaign for our security.Then again The Decider more than likely just wants to run out the clock and toss his little war into someone elses lap.

Pardon, but you betray your cog like ignorance. Tom Friedman you conjure up , and perhaps suggest that our security is threatened etc.?You like the other political game-players here do not even get what is going on. The Politicos, would like nothing better than to knock out the Iranian oil also.Why?Because that's how they made so much god-damned money before.Hello?Don`t you people ever get tired of being victimized.?This is all about money and that is all its about. That is all it was about at the beginning and it will be all it is about at the end. The American military is a mercenary force to Big Business. Big business does not care about humans to much except as markets..... $$ Beautiful .$$.Dreamers.$$. la da da $$ da.

Once again Skippy-Linus you betray your ignorance of military matters with the belief that this war can continue with the current troops. The fantasy world you live in bears no relation to the broken minds and bodies that pile up at military hospitals damaged from this war ill regardless to your wacko theory of the American military being a mercenary force. Like any machine run for too long and too hard it will break and so will the military.No pardon me Skippy-Linus by all appearances everyone that meets here has at least some understanding of the critical matters facing the country and some real idea how to fix it, except you.

Not quite sure following are "Fresh Words", Vigilante, but the invitation to post in this open thread is so great so am posting on something that actually fascinates me (personally), i.e., the principle that you can potentially impeach Bush.

It's quite frustrating that we can't even attempt anything remotely similar in the UK against Tony Blair today.

Technically, the bugger's Labour government can be ousted by a vote of no confidence in Parliament.

The closest we get to impeaching Blair is when his own party, i.e., Labour, topples him or following a defeat in the general elections, otherwise short of a huge sex scandal (heh!) that could embarass him personally (or Cherie), the bugger can pretty much do what he wants, can stay until he deems it's good to step down and can't be forced to resign.

Labour lost in the local elections last year yet the bugger stayed on - even when his MP party mates called for his resignation recently, nothing doing, the bugger can stay on.

Look at it this way, Tony Blair has all but physically "surrendered" UK sovereignity to the US - that should make that Labour donkey liable for treason. And to think Parliament can't even do anything to him.

I suspect it's Bush and powerful friends in the US are not totally innocent and are actually to helping him lots, after all they owe him lots.

Heck, we source virtually all of our major intel thinggy from the US, we are heavily dependent on the US on that score, that if the US decides to tell us what it wants to tell us we have no other points of referrence except that which come from America. Guys, am telling you, our intelligence bravados are just that - pure bravados.

AND OF COURSE, there is the issue of the TRIDENT contracts with America.

Wonder if I've told you that there were speculations tending to lend Blair with some noble, patriotic, etc. purpose for going to Iraq with Bush; heck, speculations were rife at some point in NATO-sphere/Brussels land that Bush had got Blair by the balls even before the invasion of Iraq, i.e., had the bugger not accompanied Bush to Iraq, the UK would have had problems possessing our own nuclear deterrent thinggys in other words, bye TRIDENT or good-bye to any nuclear deterrent for that matter!

You see, unlike the French that have got their own defence, military, nuclear tech, UK is heavily dependent on the US for military, defence, nuclear technology.

(Hmmm, just thinking aloud here... US do have the RICOH Law; question is how can anybody be sure that US defence suppliers are "above board" on the Trident issue.)

Ooops, Heh - this whole open threading has got me going in all directions. The bottom line is you guys can hold your president accountable directly by legal and political means. Take advantage of it.

Thanks for the ignorant comment Hillblogger. It put a funny smile on my face this morning. The U.S. controlling the U.K. ? Ha ha. Britain is the largest overall investor in the U.S. - British Petroleum along with Saudi Oil, and some others were responsible for the war. A conglomeration of Special Interests. The British banking system, Bank of England, controls much of the template of world banking through reward and punishment to Political causes they favor. Blair treason.?You have it just the opposite. Bush caters to Blair. Britain has exploited the U.S. and its resources with great success and continues to do that. British Petroleum is now perhaps going to knock more oil off the market,(Iran) perhaps before Blair leaves office. Scarcity then is maintained , hence price. Bottom line is always the bottom line. Money. Organized crime runs America, and has since the late 1940`s. Special Interests completely captured the system at that time.

Very informative, Hills. You are saying Parliament's much-celebrated vote of No-Confidence has no legal or 'constitutional' value? That it's just a convention that is observed (frequently) that a PM resigns when he receives what is taken as a 'no confident' vote? Is that it?

Just stop crying and laughing at Skip's contention that the Uk is running the US, how on earth did he come up with that one - We have just spent sixty three bloody years paying back what we borrowed to defend democracy (its called WWII) in my lifetime we have gone through two ruinous recessions where we had to cap in hand to the IMF. Get Real !!!

Tony Blair can virtually due what he wants, as he enjoys the Royal Perogative invested in the person of the prime minister. He can declare war without reference to Parliament, the new minister of justice (just created today) is a Scot who opposes an English Parliament, even though Scotland has a Parliament, has never stood for office and his sole claim to the position was he went to University with Blair and shared a flat with him. Blair like Bush is a fundamentalist, and he lied to Parliament to get us into this unholy mess. UK rules the US !! You must be kidding

Thanks Beach Bum, have some of you fellow countrypersons arriving in a hour for the weekend, taking them to the 'Slaughtered Lamb' Pub (those of you who remember An American Werewolf in London, will understand) will raise a glass to you there- Have a great weekend

Yep, you've described in broad strokes our own version of impeachment in the UK. Not really a question Constitutional legality - for as long as the question doesn't touch on doing away with Monarchy, everything Parliament does as a whole should be legal and 'Constitutional'. Besides we don't have a written Constitution just like you guys have but we do have sets of laws, lots of them.

By the way, Skip missed on the essential things which Guthrum thankfully pointed out clearly albeit succintly.

Skip, did you know that the CIA almost caused a Constitutional crisis in the UK during the term of another Labour PM in the person of Harold Wilson? The CIA resident chief in the UK (can't remember the name though) thought that Wilson was under the thumbs of the KGB and worked his ass out to stir up a coup d'état in the British Isles to topple Wilson's Labour government? Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed the coup d'état plan was stopped. In other words, Britain hasn't been totally weaned i.e., still dependent on the US on international issues, foreign policy sort of thing which have worsened under Blair's PMship.

And if I may add or clarify as the case may be, was actually referring to BRITAIN's (as a nation) POLITICAL CAPITAL and not merely to a couple of thousand major shareholders of BP or British banks. This analogy may help: you don't dig into capital when you want to go on a spending spree but into profits generated, problem is Blair's political investments have yielded no profit yet he's been digging into British political capital which is sadly getting depleted day in day out with the end result that the British nation's "investments" in Bush's war made through Blair will soon find that we are in fact will soon face bankruptcy if we don't stop Blair.